new graphic robb elementary crime scene photographs

warning: they're super graphic (no bodies other than body bags) but holy shit, a lot of blood. here is the link to the images on reddit. i think it's really crazy that the washington post made the choice to publish these pictures, but it makes a lot of sense for what they are trying to do with this article. they want to show the REAL aftermath of the AR-15, america's favorite gun. i personally think this is important to show it as a weapon of war, especially during a time when AR-15s are a symbol of freedom and shit; for example, congress people wearing their AR-15 pins to show their unwavering support. anyways, i think the article is a really cool and effective way to release the images, but i wanted to know what other people thought about it, because there are definitely different opinions on it.

full washington post article (lot of good context) : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

their explanation for publishing the photos: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've been waiting for these. Thank you.

has any major news source published photos that are so graphic before? i feel like most of the crime scene pics we see are from individuals doing FOIAs

very interesting and well-made article! i'm surprised that washington post went through with showing the pictures after all, but there's at least a clear message being made.

Wah wah, more emotionally driven propaganda to abridge on the 2nd amendment. Sure the blood splatter pics in uvalade is pretty shocking but I imagine The Washington post would never give the same article for kids killed in Syria calling it "A rare look at the devastation caused by US Air force drones", because it's not as important as the fact that some nut used a certain type of gun.

itsokaytoeatfish wrote:

Wah wah, more emotionally driven propaganda to abridge on the 2nd amendment. Sure the blood splatter pics in uvalade is pretty shocking but I imagine The Washington post would never give the same article for kids killed in Syria calling it "A rare look at the devastation caused by US Air force drones", because it's not as important as the fact that some nut used a certain type of gun.

Yeah, It's strange that people harp on AR-15s. Look at the aftermath of a mass shooting where an AR-15 was used and one where a handgun was used. Find the difference. There is none. And "weapon of war" has no gravity. Every weapon is a weapon of war. Look at this chart:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This is equipment that American soldiers use. Knives are weapons of war. Handguns are weapons of war. Shotguns are weapons of war. Bolt-action rifles are weapons of war. Everything short of bare hands and rocks are weapons of war.

The worst school shooting in U.S. history was done by a guy who had just a couple of handguns. And one of those was just a .22 that held only 10 shots.
Funny how the Washington Post always seems to forget about that.

i think the difference is the number of shootings with AR-15s, especially in the last few years. it's extremely common for american shootings. i agree with y'all's point about every weapon being a weapon of war and that v tech was done with handguns, but you can't ignore how often the AR-15 is used in these kinds of shootings.

True.

tellecat wrote:

i think the difference is the number of shootings with AR-15s, especially in the last few years. it's extremely common for american shootings. i agree with y'all's point about every weapon being a weapon of war and that v tech was done with handguns, but you can't ignore how often the AR-15 is used in these kinds of shootings.

That's a good point, but I still feel like it's pointless to go after AR-15s in particular. Let's say the government does ban AR-15s, then what? Future mass shooters will not suddenly stop being homicidal—they'll just use other types of guns to commit their shootings. Then there will just be a new gun "boogeyman" (probably glocks the next time around) and no reductions in mass shootings. People will be even more apathetic to try and solve the issue since what was paraded as a "miracle cure" didn't work.

Restricting the sale of firearms or repealing the second amendment entirely are more sensible arguments to me. When there's an argument to ban certain types of firearms, I feel like it's an all or nothing deal. Hell, I'd even go as far as to say that banning handguns would do more good. There's no way some gangster could hide an illegally-obtained rifle in his pocket. AR-15s are only an issue when you hyper focus on mass shootings. They only account for 3% of total gun-related homicides in the U.S. annually.

Carnations wrote:

tellecat wrote:

i think the difference is the number of shootings with AR-15s, especially in the last few years. it's extremely common for american shootings. i agree with y'all's point about every weapon being a weapon of war and that v tech was done with handguns, but you can't ignore how often the AR-15 is used in these kinds of shootings.

That's a good point, but I still feel like it's pointless to go after AR-15s in particular. Let's say the government does ban AR-15s, then what? Future mass shooters will not suddenly stop being homicidal—they'll just use other types of guns to commit their shootings. Then there will just be a new gun "boogeyman" (probably glocks the next time around) and no reductions in mass shootings. People will be even more apathetic to try and solve the issue since what was paraded as a "miracle cure" didn't work.

Restricting the sale of firearms or repealing the second amendment entirely are more sensible arguments to me. When there's an argument to ban certain types of firearms, I feel like it's an all or nothing deal. Hell, I'd even go as far as to say that banning handguns would do more good. There's no way some gangster could hide an illegally-obtained rifle in his pocket. AR-15s are only an issue when you hyper focus on mass shootings. They only account for 3% of total gun-related homicides in the U.S. annually.

yeah, that's fair. but i am talking about mass shootings, not all gun-related homicide.

By the way, everybody, the movement to ban Glocks is already underway right now. The weapons ban in Congress right now includes a ban on "semiautomatic versions of automatic firearms." Glock 17s and 19s are versions of the fully auto 18.

Carnations wrote:

itsokaytoeatfish wrote:

Wah wah, more emotionally driven propaganda to abridge on the 2nd amendment. Sure the blood splatter pics in uvalade is pretty shocking but I imagine The Washington post would never give the same article for kids killed in Syria calling it "A rare look at the devastation caused by US Air force drones", because it's not as important as the fact that some nut used a certain type of gun.

Yeah, It's strange that people harp on AR-15s. Look at the aftermath of a mass shooting where an AR-15 was used and one where a handgun was used. Find the difference. There is none. And "weapon of war" has no gravity. Every weapon is a weapon of war. Look at this chart:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This is equipment that American soldiers use. Knives are weapons of war. Handguns are weapons of war. Shotguns are weapons of war. Bolt-action rifles are weapons of war. Everything short of bare hands and rocks are weapons of war.

I think people are so hyperfixated on the ar15 because it has a long barrel and fires a big scary military round. They ignore the fact Cho killed 32 people with a 9mm and a 22. It's easy for people with little firearm knowledge to get caught up in the appearance of the gun and forget the fact that anything putting lead into your body at high speed is going to tear you up pretty bad.